IP/Entertainment Law Weekly Case Update For Motion Picture Studios And Television Networks - September 1, 2011


Table of Contents:

•Arenas v. Shed Media US Inc.

•Capitol Records, Inc. v. MP3tunes, LLC

•Shropshire v. Canning

•Muller v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.

Arenas v. Shed Media US Inc., USDC C.D. California, August 22, 2011

•Court denies plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunction and grants defendants’ Anti-SLAPP motion to strike, finding that plaintiff is unlikely to succeed on the merits of his claims for common law misappropriation of identify and trademark infringement, and that defendants’ reality television show is protected as an expression of their First Amendment free speech rights in connection with a matter of public concern.

Capitol Records, Inc. v. MP3tunes, LLC, USDC S.D. New York, August 22, 2011

•In a copyright infringement action, defendant MP3tunes, which provides a service that allows users to search the internet for free song files and a service that allows the online personal storage of such song files, was determined to qualify for DMCA safe harbor protection except with respect to certain specific songs identified in DMCA takedown notices and not removed from user lockers.

Shropshire v. Canning, USDC N.D. California, August 22, 2011

•In copyright infringement and DMCA misrepresentation action involving the creation of a video in Canada which was then uploaded to You Tube’s servers in California, the court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the infringement claim on extraterritoriality grounds, holding that extraterritoriality (whether or not the claim arises in the U.S.) is an element of a claim and not an issue of subject matter jurisdiction and further held that the doctrine of extraterritoriality does not apply if at least some part of the infringement occurs in the U.S.; court also denies in part defendant’s motion to dismiss DMCA misrepresentation claim.

Muller v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., USDC S.D. New York, August 22, 2011

•After granting summary judgment to film producers on plaintiff’s copyright infringement claim, court finds that attorney’s fees for defendants are appropriate because plaintiff’s claim was frivolous and objectively unreasonable, but court reduces amount of fees to $40,000 in light of plaintiff’s financial standing.

Please see full update below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Loeb & Loeb LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Loeb & Loeb LLP on:

JD Supra Readers' Choice 2016 Awards
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.